Crystal Cathedral sex covenant stirs controversyChoir members at the Crystal Cathedral have been asked to sign a statement that God intends sex only for married heterosexuals.By Nicole Santa Cruz, Los Angeles Times

The Crystal Cathedral church in Garden Grove is involved in another controversy, this time over a covenant that choir members were asked to sign stating that God intends sex to be between married heterosexuals.

"Crystal Cathedral ministries believes that it is important to teach and model the biblical view," reads the paragraph in the Crystal Cathedral Worship Choir and Worship Team Covenant that has raised the ire of some choir members. "I understand that Crystal Cathedral Ministries teaches that sexual intimacy is intended by God to only be within the bonds of marriage, between one man and one woman."

In a statement Tuesday, Senior Pastor Sheila Schuller Coleman said the covenant is meant to clarify expectations placed on choir members as ministry leaders. But she also offered an apology.

"The church of Jesus Christ at large is grappling with the challenge of reconciling love and adherence to God's word, even those passages that challenge us," she said. "As the church has been engaging in this sensitive dialogue, people that we care for deeply have been hurt. We are sincerelly sorry."

On Wednesday, church founder Robert H. Schuller said he strongly disapproved of the covenant because it goes against what he has built his church upon.

"I have a reputation worldwide of being tolerant of all people and their views," he told the Orange County Register. "I'm too well-educated to criticize a certain religion or group of people for what they believe in. It's called freedom."

The covenant issue is the latest woe for the embattled church, which filed for bankruptcy protection in October. Financial documents related to the bankruptcy case have revealed that relatives and insiders at the church have received hefty payouts and tax allowances.

"In my opinion, I keep thinking that they've made as many mistakes as they can make and they've sank as low as they can sink — and behold, they sink lower," said Don Neuen, who directed the choir for 10 years but resigned in July after Programming Director Gretchen Schuller Penner said she was going to make sure each person was "spiritually and emotionally fit."

He said he believed that meant excluding those who were gay as well as heterosexuals living together out of wedlock.

"I think it's absolutely horrible. It's the antithesis of what Christianity should be," Neuen said. "We should be reaching out and embracing and showing love to all people who are peaceful."

Mindy Kim, a former choir member, said the covenant is an example of how new leadership is eroding the church.

Kim, who sang in the choir for 10 years, said she wouldn't have signed the document.

"The thought of signing it wouldn't even enter into my head," she said. "I would leave."

Church spokesman John Charles said the covenant was not meant to exclude anyone. "We're asking people to follow the teachings of Christianity, and this is what we believe," he said. "We take the biblical view."

"I think [choir members] are taking it as anti-gay when that is not the full intent," he said. "It's anyone who has a promiscuous lifestyle."

So I guess the singles that are clandestinely promiscuous and the married heteros (or people on the down low) that hide multiple affairs are OK for the choir.

You're joking right? If you knew anything at all about Christianity you would never have typed this out. Is this some sort of sophomoric soliloquy or what? Was it said to somehow make homosexuals like Bay feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel better about their chosen lifestyle or was it to make you appear to the world at large as a real SNAG, Sensitive New Age Guy?

Do you really want me to answer your question as quoted above? All righty then. As anyone with an IQ above 70 would know, the answer to this incredibly complex question regarding any "singles that are clandestinely promiscuous and the married heteros (or people on the down low) that hide multiple affairs are OK for the choir" is a resounding "no, they are not!"

But you already knew that, didn't you? Of course you did.

The truths of Christ are not hidden unless you close your eyes and choose to write your own bible. I've told you before if I were to believe in anything it would be in the goodness of Jesus and what he and his disciples spoke on. But I choose not to believe that Jesus was anything more than a man, albeit an exceptional man.

As for the originator of this thread, Bay you are one sad little man. You worthless nellie of a bearcub. You could give a shit about Christianity or any genuine followers of Jesus. I'd tell you to go fuck yourself but that would be the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. You're that dumb, champ. How do I know you're that stupid? You pay for sex with men. Drug enhanced men. Only a sad man pays for sex, be it sex with a woman or even sadder in your case, other men.

Homosexuality is against the natural order of things. Animals may try and fuck each other in the wild, but animals are stupid. Oh wait, by association, homosexuals must be stupid too.Two men cannot make a baby together. Neither can two women. It takes two of the opposite sex, retard. That is nature, that is natural. Homosexuality is despised by all the major faiths/religions of the world, even the Dali Lama is against it. Me? I'm an atheist, and I find homosexuality in men or women to be disgusting and against the natural order of things.

I don't believe in a God, gods, goddesses or a heaven and hell, but I do know that men fucking each other in the ass is disgusting and does not produce children. Neither will a strap-on pounding between two women make babies. You are such a nellie.

You're joking right? If you knew anything at all about Christianity you would never have typed this out. Is this some sort of sophomoric soliloquy or what? Was it said to somehow make homosexuals like Bay feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel better about their chosen lifestyle or was it to make you appear to the world at large as a real SNAG, Sensitive New Age Guy?

Do you really want me to answer your question as quoted above? All righty then. As anyone with an IQ above 70 would know, the answer to this incredibly complex question regarding any "singles that are clandestinely promiscuous and the married heteros (or people on the down low) that hide multiple affairs are OK for the choir" is a resounding "no, they are not!"

My point is that there is a person in this situation who feels she is the judge and jury to determine who is emotionally and spiritually fit to serve in a choir and makes those people sign an opinion sheet about sex in order to sing.

I wonder what makes her think that she is in a position to judge who is emotionally and spiritually fit to sing songs in front of the church? If there were openly gay people in the choir and she felt it was wrong, why make everyone in the choir sign an opinion on gay vs. hetero sex? Why not just ask the person to step down?

Choir members are not considered "leaders" in church in my opinion. They are not "preaching" nor delivering a message to the congregation. They sing songs/hymns.

If, on the other hand, the people are concerned about someone who is in a leadership position..for instance, someone who will be preaching to the congregation or even a small group class and that person goes against what the bible says, that is a different story. That person should not be in a position of leadership imo.

Also, what does making people in the choir sign an opinion on sex have to do with anything?

Is she making them sign something regarding idolatry, lying, theft, murder etc. as well? If so, the article didn't state that. So what is her motive here? If it's a gay dude in the choir and that's frowned upon, ask them to step down. If it's someone openly promiscuous ask them to step down.

And do it in private. Making singers sign an opinion on sex in order to sing seems like a passive aggressive way to get someone out.

Butterbean, just what do you know? With regard to Christianity. What do you know? Are you a genuine believer or just a SNAG wannabe? Remember who you're talking to as I've more than enough knowledge of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If you feel more comfortable sending me a PM, by all means do so.

Butterbean, just what do you know? With regard to Christianity. What do you know? Are you a genuine believer or just a SNAG wannabe? Remember who you're talking to as I've more than enough knowledge of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If you feel more comfortable sending me a PM, by all means do so.

I see your definition of SNAG is Sensitive New Age Guy. I'm not New Age, I'm not a guy, but I have been known to be sensitive.

Yes, I am a genuine believer.

Oh when I first read your post I thought you wanted me to PM you but then I re-read your post. I did send a PM but we don't need to PM unless you want to. Either way I am comfortable.

What you hold true and the possibility of "offending" those that do not believe.

What's the trouble? The thing that stands out to me in the article is a woman who believes she is able to determine who is spiritually and emotionally fit by making people sign an opinion on sex in order to sing in the choir. Are you more focused that I didn't condemn homosexuality in this thread or something? That is not the main issue of the article as I see it...at least not to me.

If open homosexuals are not to be singing in the choir and that's a policy (spoken, written, unspoken, whatever) of the church, the way this woman went about it is lame imo.

...If open homosexuals are not to be singing in the choir and that's a policy (spoken, written, unspoken, whatever) of the church, the way this woman went about it is lame imo.

Come now, if you don't know and recognize that homosexuality is anathema to Christendom, then you are a fool indeed. If you know Christ, you would already know this. Even an atheist such as I knows the doctrine and Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

What's the trouble? The thing that stands out to me in the article is a woman who believes she is able to determine who is spiritually and emotionally fit by making people sign an opinion on sex in order to sing in the choir. Are you more focused that I didn't condemn homosexuality in this thread or something? That is not the main issue of the article as I see it...at least not to me.

If open homosexuals are not to be singing in the choir and that's a policy (spoken, written, unspoken, whatever) of the church, the way this woman went about it is lame imo.

You are not spiritually and emotionally fit! You can't sing in her choir!

Can you imagine anyone trying to apply this "test" for employment anywhere? And the gall of this woman to think she is the one to judge.

Come now, if you don't know and recognize that homosexuality is anathema to Christendom, then you are a fool indeed. If you know Christ, you would already know this. Even an atheist such as I knows the doctrine and Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

Of course the bible states that engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful. Of course I know that.

Like I said, that's not what this article was about....at least not to me.

You are not spiritually and emotionally fit! You can't sing in her choir!

Can you imagine anyone trying to apply this "test" for employment anywhere? And the gall of this woman to think she is the one to judge.

Yes, I think it's pretty probable she has her own sin issues as does everyone. Some are very disciplined and able to live purer lives than others, but none are perfect.If the policy is no open gays or promiscuous heteros or gays in the choir, just address it directly imo.

Of course the bible states that engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful. Of course I know that.

Like I said, that's not what this article was about....at least not to me.

So what's it all about, Alfie? No...Really. What does this article mean to you as a genuine follower of the Christ? Remember to whom you are replying. One that knows the faith you profess and will compare it to your answer(s).